The Nuclear Option, our american filibuster Options

[sadolakced acid]

Now, here's a little background for those of you who don't know about the nuclear option (or the filibuster).

the dems have 45 seats in the senate, there's one independent who often votes liberal, and 54 gops (grand old party= republican).

a filibuster is where you talk something to death. the senate must let everyone speak about an issue before they vote, or they take a vote to close speeches (requries a 60%)

now, the dems have been using the filibuster to stop GOP nominations, which the senate must approve. the GOP is angry= they won an election, now they want to be able to put thier judges up, and have thier contributers be made diplomates and embassadors.

the nuclear option would get rid of the filibuster. they'd only need a 51% to stop filibusters then, easily gotten with 54 seats.

NOW FOR THE PROMPT

the nuclear option violates a tradition in the senate, the dems also threaten to stop every single piece of legislation if the nuclear option is employed.

so: do you think the nuclear option should be employed? and if you say no, which side should back down/ what should be done?

[*CrackedRearView*]

Well, it's nothing new. Post-election hostility will always be a factor in American politics. It's the same mentality that confused, non-conformist teens possess when they say 'Bush is not my president, I'm moving to Canada!' It's an irrational, unsubstantiated hatred for the party that beat you.

As well, filibustering will always be a part of our legislative system, and the Republicans need to realize that. People don't like losing, and when they do, you'll hardly find them siding, and agreeing with their opponents when it comes to domestic and foreign policy.

Furthermore, mipadi, when you said that politics, by definition, were to never be involved in the Judicial Branch, you overestimate the extent to which that very definition matters. I suppose it goes back to that neverending battle between 'the Letter of the Law vs. the Spirit of the Law', where I found that, in most cases, the Spirit of the Law was more logical. It would be ridiculous to say that 1/3 of the world's largest political body would be absolutely remote from political influence.

But, back to the topic at hand. In essence, I find myself on a neutral plateau when it comes to this issue. Democrats from 2005-2008 will have their three-piece suits wrinkled and tattered from all the whining they'll do when it comes to Republican influence in the House and Senate (and vice versa for any other election). In that sense, they're wrong. On the contrary, Republicans need to take note of the fact that filibustering, a mere prototype of human nature, will always be around, and an oppressive system like the nuclear option is absolutely unacceptable.